[governance] Inquiry for a new vision into the future of IGC

[Deirdre Williams]

Dear JFC,
In an earlier message Mawaki made the point that there is no particular
reason for the co-coordinators to share the same perspective. I agree with
him. The difficulties of electing co-ordinators if that was a requirement
would be huge. I write this because I'm about to disagree with him :-)

Your message seems to me to be offering us an analogy - the basic technical
structure of the Internet as a model of what could be a "spiritual"
structure for "end user governance". It reminds us that in the final
analysis we are all "end users", all "civil society".  I got a bit lost
towards the end because I'm not a technical person and don't think easily
in technical terms. However I think I got the general drift - I hope I did
because I think it's a wonderful idea.

Trying to give context to a proposal elsewhere I used the sentence "Because
it opens and facilitates possibilities for participation, the “way of the
internet” is to allow us to be different together." I think your model
would allow this.

Societies, or as Garth Graham would prefer communities, form around trust.
Members surrender a small part of their individuality - not their freedom,
their individuality - for the benefits of belonging to the group. The
surrender is what creates tolerance - it allows for "your way is right for
you and my way is right for me and we can still be friends."

It's a shame that tolerance and trust once lost are so difficult to find
again. However at the level of individuals, one person at a time, although
slow, it's possible.

Thank you for your suggestion
Best wishes
Deirdre



On 26 June 2014 17:34, Mawaki Chango <kichango at gmail.com> wrote:

> Dear JFC,
>
> Thank you for your elaboration, which I have read from first to last word
> -- I am probably one of a few who take the trouble to read your messages
> integrally. No offense but I am sorry to say this: I understand Foucault
> (whom I can read and understand in original version without opening a
> dictionary), including his translations in English, better than I
> understand you.
>
> The IGC membership/audience is not one of network architects. This thread
> was not meant to discuss any particular substantive issue, nor was it
> intended to propose an alternate architecture to the Internet as we know it
> or to the IG ecosystem for that matter. That might come some other time.
> But for now, we only seek to figure out how to give a new breath to this
> Caucus and enable it to work again collaboratively and productively in
> order to remain relevant through its contributions when it comes to public
> policy, societal and social implications of Internet governance. For
> everyone's information, please see below an excerpt of the IGC Charter
> regarding its mission and objectives.
>
> I would humbly advise you start from the TERMS of OUR question/problem and
> try to guide us, using those terms and others as simple as those terms, to
> the "promise land"  -- would be best if it is one that addresses our
> concern -- even if such place may otherwise also be characterized through
> your preferred architectonic lexicon. But starting from your universe and
> its language really makes it quite impossible for most people to follow and
> make something useful for them out of your contributions.
>
> I hope this group will still benefit from your ideas in words that the
> least engaged of us can still process.
> Thank you for your understanding and cooperation.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Mawaki
>
>
> *Mission*
>
> The mission of the Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) is to provide a forum
> for discussion, advocacy, action, and for representation of civil society
> contributions in Internet governance processes. The caucus intends to
> provide an open and effective forum for civil society to share opinion,
> policy options and expertise on Internet governance issues, and to provide
> a mechanism for coordination of advocacy to enhance the utilization and
> influence of Civil Society (CS) and the IGC in relevant policy processes.
>
> *Objectives and Tasks*
>
> The objectives and tasks of the IGC are to:
>
> * Inform civil society and other progressive groups/actors on significant
> developments impacting on Internet governance policies.
> * Provide a context for open on line and, wherever and whenever possible,
> face-to-face debate on the range of issues related to Internet governance
> policies from a civil society perspective.
> * Develop an on-going and outcome oriented structure. Create informal
> relationships with various CS groups and individuals with a direct interest
> in Internet governance policies, including those involved in human rights,
> ICT4D, intellectual property, international trade and global electronic
> commerce, access to knowledge, and security.
> * Provide outreach to other CS groups who have an interest or a stake in
> some aspect of Internet governance polices.
> Act as the representative of itself, and other CS constituencies with
> similar interests, generally or on specific issues, at various forums
> involved with Internet governance policies.
> * For the sake of the above, as well as for more general purposes, develop
> common positions on issues relating to Internet governance policies, and
> make outreach efforts both for informing and for creating broad-based
> support among other CS groups and individuals for such positions.
> * Anticipate, identify and address emerging issues in the areas of
> Internet governance and help shape issues and perspectives in a manner that
> is informed by the stated vision of the IGC.
> * Collaborate with other stakeholders in the implementation of agreed
> projects and policies towards better Internet governance.
>
>
>
> On Thu, Jun 26, 2014 at 6:40 PM, JFC Morfin <jefsey at jefsey.com> wrote:
>
>>  Dear Mawaki,
>>
>> let assume the WSIS achitectonic model (gov, private, international,
>> civil) is right. A serious MSism needs to proceed by layers/planes/topics :
>> politics, economy, technology, research, law, culture, etc. For each of
>> these layer/plane/topic each MS group need to bring a balancing
>> contribution that will contribute with its particular abilities, interests,
>> working results, dynamism, ideas, innovation.
>>
>> From what we observe Govs are influenced by the USG, private sector by
>> ICC, international by UN, i.e. three diversified layers/plans/topics
>> leadership/facilitating dynamisms. Civil Society, for various good and bad
>> reasons (including lack of money, lack of self-understanding of the
>> differences between government of people, sales to markets, NGO crowds, and
>> global complex multitude) has done quite nothing except focusing on human
>> rights, mostly only talking about them.
>>
>> As a result every human knows now how to be influenced by machines, be
>> commanded by govs, buy as a consumer, and wait for foreign help. We have
>> all forget that we are those who build the world, help each others, are the
>> govs and make the industry work. We forgot to contribute only complaining.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> *How to correct this? *My understanding is that the WSIS model has three
>> global and specialized classes (govs, business and NGOs) and one local and
>> general one (Civil Society). We are at different granularity level. To
>> obtain global peace Govs want to coordinate, business to compete, NGOs to
>> help: we want to live in a resulting local peace we are to organize and
>> consolidate in our own framework.
>>
>> If the others cannot network that peace, or need help, we have to weave
>> it at our own level: we the people.
>>
>> This is why I think the solution is to come back to the network
>> fundamentals (it being ARPANET, Tymnet,  Internet, UN, I*Core, etc.) : the
>> networking we use must fit the networking we are given. Govs, business,
>> International organizations try to build a top down solution: the nework of
>> networks. We need to use our networks in it. This makes a simple model: the
>> networks of the network of networks.
>>
>> This has a simple name which is called coalitions, alliances, peoples,
>> nations, communities, collectivities, families, frienship, projects,
>> persons, closed-user-groups, class/groups, etc. etc. in states, people and
>> machines relations. In internet wording these are "entangled VGNs" (virtual
>> global networks, or "open closed gardens"). They are the way we chose to
>> stabilize our individual or  grouped optimization of our digitalities
>> networking.
>>
>> You can call them the way you want if you are not pleased with the term.
>> The important thing for each of us is the way we can build, govern and
>> protect them..
>>
>> From my personal experience, we are right now
>> - staturated at the states global VGN planes (US, CN, possibly Europe,
>> etc.),
>> - we are fed-up by the private global systems (edge providers, technology
>> communities)
>> - and uncertain about the states and private national VGNs (e-government,
>> national franchising, e-commerce).
>>
>> Also, we are not ready at individual planes (still a lot of Libre
>> solutions integration needed to ballance and interface with institutional
>> and commercial propositions).
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> *The engaged necessary wining path *As a conquence, I think and try to
>> experiment what is possible to do at the intermediate level of quarters,
>> villages, valleys, etc. Where people share many different economic,
>> political, cultural, family,etc. interests. This is why I am more
>> interested in the "intelligent village on the information highways by
>> everyone for everyone", because as Gene Gaines puts it: "we are the
>> internet". In that context, the local VGN (virtual glocal network) become
>> real stakeholders with the same power as the US VGN, with their own
>> HomeRoot, SuperIANA, Happy-IPs. Not yet fully organized, tested, etc. But
>> we have a few months before they try to flood the planet with their
>> NTIACANN Love Story. In every plan preparation, a contingency plan is
>> necessary. It is mine, and I suggest that the more we are the best it will
>> be.
>>
>> Sorry if my project is in French. But links are also in English. I would
>> like to fill  this page:
>> http://sv2b.net/index.php/Liste_d%27initiatives_comparables_dans_le_monde
>> <http://sv2b.net/index.php/Liste_d'initiatives_comparables_dans_le_monde>
>> with links to local significative people's projects.
>>
>> The conceptual modem is simple:
>>
>> - a local physical meshed network offering fast and symetric connections
>> (M&M model: masters with masters),
>> - with SDN (software designed networking) connected through OPES (open
>> pluggable edge services),
>> - with a LISP IPv4 gateway relating with
>>   --- other similar plateforms
>>   --- or edge providers selected through the local/personal DNS through
>> different technology network systems.
>>   --- or regular current internet (default).
>>
>> Forget about ICANN, RIRs, IETF:
>> - they only are interested in low grade (current non neutral QoS),
>> - while our VGN layer (actually the missing OSI presentation layer six)
>> can support
>>   ---  local/global traffic optimization,
>>   --- including CCN (content centered networking)
>>   --- and active content intelligrams (intelligence)
>>
>> This is not big conceptual deal, except that we have to coordinate a
>> myriad of solutions, make them compatible, etc. hence to be present as MS
>> "inter-users" (i.e. talking together and not only having network access) in
>> the normative assemblies. Standards are the way we are governed. Time has
>> come for norms to be part of political parties projects. What is to be our
>> society: power, money, machine, people centered ?
>>
>> If we are not member of the resulting MS debate and running code/leaving
>> mode experimentation, never mind, the result will be the same (digital
>> world equilibrium) after some more delays and clashes. Scientifically this
>> is named "self-ordering criticality". "SOC" is the way the world works.
>> Criticalities can be benign when people are smart, they can be wars when
>> they are not.
>>
>> jfc
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> At 14:01 26/06/2014, Mawaki Chango wrote:
>>
>> Dear Members,
>>
>> This is an informal inquiry I would like to launch to hear from IGC
>> members or list subscribers and collect your ideas about where we should go
>> from here, as the Internet Governance Caucus.
>>
>> Particularly, please share your thoughts as to whether, in this context
>> of IG or Information Society more broadly, civil society needs an analogue
>> to what ICC BASIS ( http://www.iccwbo.org/advocacy-codes-and-rules/basis/)
>> is doing for business, and if so, what this would need to be like.
>>
>>
>> Thanks for your cooperation.
>>
>> Mawaki
>>
>> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
>> Content-Disposition: inline; filename="message-footer.txt"
>>
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>
>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>
>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>
>>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>


-- 
“The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir William
Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140627/2ff4c5ce/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t